US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7116

On March 15 2017 02:06 opisska wrote:
I don't understand why xDaunt isn't already all over this conversation, but from talking to him, I learned that there are some rather reasonable people (with very different opinions from mine, but definitely not stupid) who voted Trump despite him being Trump, with rational justifications, such as likelihood of putting forward policies that they perceive will benefit them. I don't know how big this electorate is, but you really need to give credit to the fact that there are just two options and that it is always all-or-nothing. To put it very simply, if you feel like taxation endangers your ability to provide for you family, you may easily look past the topics that don't affect you if you aren't gay, black or a woman.

On March 15 2017 02:06 opisska wrote:
I don't understand why xDaunt isn't already all over this conversation, but from talking to him, I learned that there are some rather reasonable people (with very different opinions from mine, but definitely not stupid) who voted Trump despite him being Trump, with rational justifications, such as likelihood of putting forward policies that they perceive will benefit them. I don't know how big this electorate is, but you really need to give credit to the fact that there are just two options and that it is always all-or-nothing. To put it very simply, if you feel like taxation endangers your ability to provide for you family, you may easily look past the topics that don't affect you if you aren't gay, black or a woman.

On March 15 2017 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:

I believe he is trying to say that other candidates could have scored better then Hillary and could have won where she did not.

Trump does not beat all possible candidates.

(And while that might be factually correct I dont really agree with it. Trump's victory very much shows there is a lot more deplorable/stupid people in the US then we all though/hoped).

On March 15 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:

Trump's tax plan specifically targeted those with the least money for tax increases. Trump's tax plan helps those who feel that taxation forces their children to share the use of a single horse rather than each having their own.

On March 15 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:
I'll save you is a compelling message. I'll fight for you against everything you fear has deep appeal. I'll make it all go away because the system is broken speaks to people.

We constantly understand how deeply angry voters are at Washington, republican and democrat. People are tired of the same political footballs being thrown around year after year while hundreds of millions flow into elections, wages stagnate and student loans threaten to destroy education in this country.

And a large section of them also don't give a fuck about sexual harassment or civil rights. Those are secondary issues that come after figuring out how you kids survive in this economy.

That is why people voted for Trump. They didn't care about the specifics. Which they might regret.

On March 15 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:

Trump's tax plan specifically targeted those with the least money for tax increases. Trump's tax plan helps those who feel that taxation forces their children to share the use of a single horse rather than each having their own.

And it's not like xDaunt is some kind of credible non-racist Republican who can give us all a clear explanation about how he reconciles not being a terrible human being with voting for Trump. xDaunt is alt-right. Let’s dispel with this fiction that xDaunt doesn’t like what Trump is doing. He likes exactly what Trump is doing.

On March 15 2017 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:


Well, let's say that the premise is right. Let's say that America is that fucked up and loves far right extremism just that much. We still want to win next time, right? So logically we should move our discourse even more to the right of where it was now, since we lost because America is fucked up, so we should become a little more fucked up ourselves to appeal to it.

Very schematically, that's what the democratic party has been doing for a while now, and it has lost what, 1000 seats, doing it? The results don't seem to corroborate the premise, so perhaps the premise is wrong.

On March 15 2017 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:


Well, let's say that the premise is right. Let's say that America is that fucked up and loves far right extremism just that much. We still want to win next time, right? So logically we should move our discourse even more to the right of where it was now, since we lost because America is fucked up, so we should become a little more fucked up ourselves to appeal to it.

Very schematically, that's what the democratic party has been doing for a while now, and it has lost what, 1000 seats, doing it? The results don't seem to corroborate the premise, so perhaps the premise is wrong.

On March 15 2017 02:20 opisska wrote:


I honestly don't know the details of his tax plan, understanding US systems from the outside is pretty though, but I have a vague sense that you are absolutely correct here. It then simply means that a lot of those voters are about as informed as I am. Or that the picture is bigger and that they see other economical impact beyond just taxes. Or that they perceive republican policies as inherently beneficial to their class and thus have huge confirmation biases when seeking information on the topic.

For me, this has been by far the most interesting aspect of the whole elections - observing republican voters in various forums and trying to understand their motivation for such an obviously irrational vote. Surely, the idiots exist, but this is just a much deeper phenomenon. I find the ACA situation particularly interesting, hearing people say over and over again that the individual mandate forces them to have "coverage they don't need because they are healthy" is such a blatant misunderstanding of the whole system of health insurance, yet it goes on and on and on ...

On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.

So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050

So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550

The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.

In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.

The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.

Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.

I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".

Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare.

On March 15 2017 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:

That is the 'stupid but not deplorable' part of the Trump voter base.

Choosing the guy who lies to help them while helping his rich buddies does not make them any less stupid.

On March 15 2017 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:

What? The Democrats over the last 8+ years have tried the high road. They haven't gone 'be more fucked up then the Republicans'. And while doing that they have suffered those losses.

Is the solution to be worse then them? Short term maybe, long term I hope not.

But you can't educate a fool who doesn't want to listen that the stove is hot. You can just explain it to him and then wait for his hand to burn.

On March 15 2017 02:06 opisska wrote:
To put it very simply, if you feel like taxation endangers your ability to provide for you family, you may easily look past the topics that don't affect you if you aren't gay, black or a woman.

On March 15 2017 02:06 opisska wrote:
I don't understand why xDaunt isn't already all over this conversation, but from talking to him, I learned that there are some rather reasonable people (with very different opinions from mine, but definitely not stupid) who voted Trump despite him being Trump, with rational justifications, such as likelihood of putting forward policies that they perceive will benefit them. I don't know how big this electorate is, but you really need to give credit to the fact that there are just two options and that it is always all-or-nothing. To put it very simply, if you feel like taxation endangers your ability to provide for you family, you may easily look past the topics that don't affect you if you aren't gay, black or a woman.

On March 15 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
You're missing the point. This eagerness to insist that Hillary was a bad candidate and therefore America couldn't have been expected to vote for her over Trump is ridiculous. America could have been expected to vote for her over Trump. Hell, America could have been expected to vote for a return to British rule over Trump.

The problem isn't that Hillary was bad. The problem is that a large number of Americans actually like Trump. That's the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about. When he retweets neo-Nazi facebook forwards about black on black crime they feel validated. When he blames the Chinese for America's woes they're happy about that. When he degrades women, insults minorities and promises to commit war crimes they have their waning sense of masculinity restored.

Hillary did not force anyone to vote for Trump. She didn't go into the polls with them. She didn't twist their arms. She didn't fill in the ballot for them. She ran and she presented a credible alternative and people chose Trump over her because they wanted what Trump was offering. And nobody seems to want to talk about that. When they ask themselves how America managed to elect an openly racist President nobody wants to say "well maybe racism is an issue in America", it's all "well Hillary must have made them do it". Hillary didn't make them do shit. If you want to explain the election result then you have to talk about the voters, this Hillary shit is nothing but misdirection from people in denial. It's all "it's not that our message failed to resonate with the voters, our message is fine, it's just the messenger was wrong" as if anyone went into this election not knowing that one of the candidates was a racist.

On March 15 2017 03:09 ShoCkeyy wrote:
In all honesty, democrats lost because they're all condensed into the top 20 cities of the US... So even if they outvoted Trump, the most rural states helped him win the electoral cause it looked like he had "more" states. People forgot how civics works - back to lack of education overall.

On March 15 2017 04:51 Danglars wrote:

Indeed, he took a very round number of them. 30 to 20. Which is why we hear so much made about the popular vote, though you could diminish the lead in one state and erase it.